A blip in Trump and Putin’s relationship

For decades Trump has been singing Putin’s praises, calling the 2014 annexation of Crimea “so smart” and his 2022 full scale invasion of Ukraine “genius”. Since the beginning of his second term in office, he has been very friendly towards Putin. However, the last few days have seen Trump be less accommodating to the Kremlin. Trump reduced Putin’s ceasefire deadline, threatened sanctions, and positioned US nuclear submarines closer to Russia. Trump is clearly growing impatient with Putin’s unwillingness to end the war. Do Trump’s recent actions signal a meaningful change in the dynamic between Trump and Putin or are Trump’s threats empty and unlikely to have an impact on his cosy relationship with Putin?

Looking to the start of Trump’s second presidency, we have seen him, time and time again make concession after concession to Russia whilst rolling back US support for Ukraine. Trump refused to reproach Putin for invading Ukraine, voted alongside Russia, Belarus and North Korea against a UN resolution condemning the Russian invasion, and his administration has held ‘peace’ talks with Putin without Zelenskyy. He has further acted in the Kremlin’s interests by stepping back from NATO, and undermining western consensus on the war.

Trump has also been very hostile towards Ukraine directly. On two occasions, Trump paused the delivery of military supplies to Ukraine. This, alongside the US’ decision to withdraw intelligence, emboldened Putin to increase his assault on Ukrainian cities. Trump has displayed personal animosity towards Zelenskyy, calling him a “dictator” and humiliating him in the Oval Office. This is while Trump shows that he respects Putin; he would “love” to see Russia back in the G7, and has expressed his keenness for US-Russian investment projects. Trump likes strongmen and enjoys entertaining the idea that large nations should make all the decisions, whilst leaving smaller nations to be subject to these decisions, and so it is clear which leader he admires more.

In the last few days however, Trump called out Putin’s “bullshit”, threatened new economic sanctions and stationed US submarines closer to Russia. Yes, Trump has previously criticised Putin for attacking Kyiv, killing 12 people, which he called “unnecessary” and “badly timed.” However, Trump has not shown signs of frustration before like he is now. Can we see these actions as a shift in Trump’s view of Putin?

In short, no.

Trump has not done a 180 degrees turn on Putin, he is simply growing impatient. Trump ran part of his election campaign on the idea that he could stop the war in “24 hours”, at the time of writing it has been 197 days. The peace deal that Trump thought he could manufacture can only work if both sides genuinely want peace. Putin’s continued attacks on Ukrainian cities show that Putin’s desire for peace is no different now to when he launched his full scale invasion in February 2022. This reality is now slowly dawning on Trump. Putin’s method in negotiations has been to stall and to derail progress, and because this reflects badly on Trump, given his promises, he is now starting to get frustrated.

However, what does not follow from this is that Trump has decided to take a firm stance towards Putin; his actions have largely been empty and symbolic.

Following Trump’s statement that sanctions on Russian oil will stop the war: “If you get energy down, another $10 a barrel, he’s going to have no choice because his economy stinks”, he has threatened to erect more tariffs on Russia and its energy importing allies, like India. Whilst sanctions can be an effective geopolitical tool, Trump himself has admitted that Russia is “pretty good at avoiding sanctions.” Despite hundreds of sanctions, Russia has hitherto been able to fund its war using its energy profits, so the effectiveness of more sanctions is open to doubt.

Making this move emptier is the reality that for Putin, his war goals take precedence over giving into Trump’s demands. Putin’s legacy in Russia is now heavily tied to the outcome of his invasion. His long held belief in defending Russia against western incursion and in the “historical unity of Russia and Ukraine” makes the threat of sanctions one with little potential to stop Putin from trying to fulfil his maximalist ambitions on Ukrainian territory.

Also, after Medvedev’s tweet blaming Trump of playing “the ultimatum game”, of which each one is a “step towards war” and warning of a “dead hand threat”, Trump stationed long range nuclear missiles closer to Russia. However, the US’ long range missiles do not have to be closer to Russia to be more of a threat; they can hit Russian targets from the Atlantic sea, so this was a purely symbolic move.

Despite Trump’s impatience with Putin throwing a spanner in the works in their relationship, Trump, as of now, is not ready to take meaningful action against Putin to push him to end his invasion. The blip in their relationship is temporary; it is only a matter of time before Trump’s administration holds ‘peace’ talks with Putin, which like before, unfairly do not offer Zelenskyy a seat at the negotiating table.

 

* Natalie Andrusyschyn is a Liberal democrat member, a second year History student at Durham University and Deputy Comment Editor at the Palatinate student newspaper.

Read more by or more about , , or .
This entry was posted in News.
Advert

3 Comments

  • Brenda Will 12th Aug '25 - 2:50pm

    I have no problem with Trump having talks with Putin, and then holding separate talks with Zelensky. This reminds me of how Henry Kissinger moved towards getting agreements in the middle-east. However, a negotiated settlement will not mean that one side gets everything they want – it will mean that both sides have to compromise. While Ukraine and its allies demand that Ukraine gets back all its territory, they know that such an outcome would only come from military victory rather than a negotiated settlement. Trump therefore, by trying to get a negotiated peace, will be opposed by Ukraine and its allies.
    So, do we hope that Trump succeeds in getting Russia and Ukraine to reach a compromise that will inevitably leave Russia with some of the Ukrainian land it claims? Or do we hope for the talks to fail and the war to continue?

  • Peace at any price? We all hope that Trump can land a peace deal but it must involve Ukraine. If Russia holds on to only just one province then it’s aggression worked. A land swap for NATO and EU membership could work but would Putin accept it. I think not!

  • Zachary Adam Barker 12th Aug '25 - 9:12pm

    “This reminds me of how Henry Kissinger moved towards getting agreements in the middle-east”

    Trump is by no means as calculated as Kissinger. And Kissinger’s legacy is very much disputed anyway.

    “Or do we hope for the talks to fail and the war to continue?”

    Irrelevant if Putin gets rewarded for his aggression. If he does the next war could come at any time or place of his choosing. As oppose to the more predictable scenario we have now, with Ukraine still not getting the full support it could get from either Europe or the United States.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert

Recent Comments

  • David Raw
    @ Tom Bailey Given that Ms Ursula von der Leyen is a Lutheran not a Catholic you seem to have a vivid imagination....
  • Jenny Barnes
    Matt " I believe the only way forward on this as it is on on social issues, is rational, persuasive, constant debate and dialogue – of course, based on respec...
  • Tom Bailey
    Daniel Walker, I'm fully aware of how the EU elective system works, and the point is that European voters are not allowed any direct access to that process. [ p...
  • Gill Travers
    Charlotte Cane “Will the Minister consider changing the law so that the Equality Act lives up to its name?” is a valid contribution. Things have moved on si...
  • Alison Howarth
    @ Kira Collins So you think that a trans man should be treated as the biological woman they are and given pregnancy and maternity protections? That sounds very ...